RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Electronic hospital variance reporting systems used to report near misses and adverse events are plagued by underreporting. The purpose of this study is to prospectively evaluate directly observed variances that occur in our pediatric operating room and to correlate these with the two established variance reporting systems in our hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Trained individuals directly observed pediatric perioperative patient care for 6 wk to identify near misses and adverse events. These direct observations were compared to the established handwritten perioperative variance cards and the electronic hospital variance reporting system. All observations were analyzed and categorized into an additional six safety domains and five variance categories. The chi-square test was used, and P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Out of 830 surgical cases, 211 were audited by the safety observers. During this period, 137 (64%) near misses were identified by direct observation, while 57 (7%) handwritten and 8 (1%) electronic variance were reported. Only 1 of 137 observed events was reported in the handwritten variance system. Five directly observed adverse events were not reported in either of the two variance reporting systems. Safety observers were more likely to recognize time-out and equipment variances (P < 0.001). Both variance reporting systems and direct observation identified numerous policy and process issues. CONCLUSIONS: Despite multiple reporting systems, near misses and adverse events remain underreported. Identifying near misses may help address system and process issues before an adverse event occurs. Efforts need to be made to lessen barriers to reporting in order to improve patient safety.
Assuntos
Near Miss/estatística & dados numéricos , Salas Cirúrgicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Segurança do Paciente , Pediatria/estatística & dados numéricos , Gestão de Riscos/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Estudos ProspectivosRESUMO
Objective: Integrating clinical research into routine clinical care workflows within electronic health record systems (EHRs) can be challenging, expensive, and labor-intensive. This case study presents a large-scale clinical research project conducted entirely within a commercial EHR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Case Report: The UCSD and UCSDH COVID-19 NeutraliZing Antibody Project (ZAP) aimed to evaluate antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2 virus in a large population at an academic medical center and examine the association between antibody levels and subsequent infection diagnosis. Results: The project rapidly and successfully enrolled and consented over 2000 participants, integrating the research trial with standing COVID-19 testing operations, staff, lab, and mobile applications. EHR-integration increased enrollment, ease of scheduling, survey distribution, and return of research results at a low cost by utilizing existing resources. Conclusion: The case study highlights the potential benefits of EHR-integrated clinical research, expanding their reach across multiple health systems and facilitating rapid learning during a global health crisis.
RESUMO
Despite recognizing the occurrence of variances, we noted a low rate of reporting with the established computer variance program. Therefore, we developed and introduced a simple, handwritten variance reporting system. The goal of this study was to compare our pediatric perioperative handwritten variance cards to our established computerized variance reporting system. METHODS: We developed a handwritten variance card program through a stakeholder-driven quality-improvement initiative. We collected variances from handwritten cards in 4 perioperative locations and also from the established computerized variance system. We analyzed the variances and categorized them into 6 safety domains and 5 variance categories. RESULTS: Over 6 consecutive years, 3,434 variances were reported (687 computerized and 2,747 handwritten). For safety domains, the computerized system was more likely to capture adverse events and near-misses (8.7% vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001; 23.5% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001, respectively) while the handwritten system was more likely to identify the safety process and other non-safety issues (20.1% vs. 38.3%, P < 0.001). Both systems addressed policy/process issues most often, with 37.9% of the handwritten cards and 66.6% of the computerized variance reports. Of the handwritten cards with a patient identifier (n = 1,407), only 5.1% (n = 72) also had a computerized variance filed about the same event. Thus, staff reported >1,300 additional variances that were not identified with the computerized variance system alone. CONCLUSION: The handwritten, stakeholder-driven variance reporting system was essential to identify local and system issues that would not have been identified by the computerized variance reporting system alone.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates patient safety education without specific curricular guidelines. We hypothesized that a dedicated, adjunctive resident safety workshop (SW) led by surgical faculty compared with an online curriculum (OC) for hospital personnel alone would improve residents' patient safety perceptions and behaviors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial was performed from 2014 to 2015 within a university-based general surgery residency. Control and intervention groups, stratified by postgraduate year, participated in a hospital-based OC; the intervention group participated in an additional SW. Primary outcomes were perceptions of safety culture, teamwork, and speaking up as per the validated safety attitudes questionnaire (SAQ) at 6 and 12 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes included behavioral scores from blinded surgical faculty using the Oxford NonTechnical Skills scale. RESULTS: A total of 51 residents were enrolled (control = 25, intervention = 26). SAQ response rates were 100%, 100%, and 76% at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. SAQ scores were similar at baseline between groups and did not change significantly at 6 or 12 months, independent of postgraduate year (PGY) level. Overall NonTechnical Skills scores were similar between groups, but senior residents (≥PGY 4) in the OC + SW group scored significantly higher in teamwork, decision-making, and situation awareness (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: An adjunctive, dedicated resident SW compared with a hospital-based OC alone did not significantly improve overall perceptions of patient safety. However, senior residents participating in the SW demonstrated improved patient safety perceptions and had significantly better intraoperative safety behaviors than senior residents in the OC group. Future curricular enhancements should include PGY-level specific education, iterative reviews, and increased faculty involvement. A larger randomized trial may be warranted.